Seriously though, just install Debian. It's not hard, the netinstaller may be text-mode but it walks you through the simple steps one by one just like Ubuntu's GUI installer. Anybody who's comfortable using Ubuntu in the first place should be able to get through the Debian installer just fine.
In my experience, the stability concerns are overblown, and it makes for a really nice rolling release system. I've had individual systems run for over a decade on a Debian testing install with rolling updates, and it's generally been far less of a headache than Ubuntu releases.
Edit: I just checked for the classic case of latest Python (3.11), and the answer for Debian is to build from source, which is annoying (not difficult to compile, but then future updates can't be pulled in via apt). Does Debian not have a vibrant PPA community to fill the gaps like Ubuntu?
Yeah, it does: the Ubuntu PPA community. (See https://wiki.debian.org/CreatePackageFromPPA, and similar.)
systemd was actually inspired by launchd, not Windows. But I guess systemd, Windows and launchd do share one thing in common which is not having a bunch of bandaid shell scripts hanging the system together.
I don't think I've seen anyone complain about systemd's init system or service manager; it's always about the remaining 90% of systemd's scope and its tight coupling between all its parts (the tight coupling being the main problem).
Prevent dynamic linking?
Offer strong backwards compatibility?
Add support for a very wide range of hardware?
Put advertisements in the start menu?
Cause unexpected reboots for updates?
Send telemetry to the OS manufacturer?
Force users to get an online account unless they know the secret way to bypass the prompt?
Or is there a differentiator between Windows and Linux I am overlooking?
What you should look at is the difference between Debian and Devuan. Or between Debian and OpenBSD, to understand what the systemd project is doing, and how it’s doing it.
There are many of us that prefer Linux as it was before systemd.
Running with the crowd has some advantages. Many feet passing on the path before you trample more bugs before you get there etc.
For anyone looking to use debian I highly recommend it and prefer it to any other distro.
This is nice if you're dual booting Windows 11. It's also probably going to increase the Ubuntu's representation in desktop Linux by virtue of booting without any EFI setup tinkering, because a lot of people's patience ends exactly where things cease to work as expected.
Since there are so many people that don't have this problem, I understand that it's something I'm doing wrong -- but I have never been able to figure out what that is.
This was well over a decade ago though :)
I like Debian, but after (free)Ubuntu pro, it really became attractive for me as a small server operator, its even better than free RHEL.
Its also much easier to install on cloud servers than RHEL.
"Ubuntu pro" is basically trying to fix this shortcoming compared to debian and to pay for a security team for universe. It is available as a subscription.
TLDR: If you use software from main it is completely irrelevant. If you use stuff from universe it is now as good as debian, if you pay (first 5 devices are free).
(For work, where I just want something that won't make me "the asshole who chose [non-standard thing]". I prefer Void or FreeBSD or, sometimes, Debian, for my own stuff)
[EDIT] Oh, right, specifically for desktop? Yeah, I'd go Void or Arch probably. Buuuuuut if it were for work, I'd just use Ubuntu, even on the desktop, so it wouldn't be my fault when it misbehaves.
I meant more so for people who are somewhat active on these discussions but still go with Ubuntu.
